Associational Whistleblower Retaliation
Associational discrimination occurs when an employer discriminates or retaliates against an employee based on the employee’s association or affiliation with another employee who engaged in or who the employer believes engaged in protected activity. Perez v. Lloyd Industries, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 3d 308, 319 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (citing Reich v. Cambridgeport Air Sys., Inc., 26 F.3d 1187, 1189 (1st Cir. 1994)). This well-established doctrine in Title VII jurisprudence has been applied in whistleblower retaliation cases and the text of some whistleblower protection laws expressly prohibit associational retaliation. See, e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, § 11(c), 29 U.S.C. § 660(c).
Under Title VII’s broad anti-retaliation provision, an employer is prohibited from retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity if that retaliation “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (quoting Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006)). In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the Supreme Court held that if the plaintiff could prove that an employer fired them in retaliation for their fiancé filing a charge of discrimination, Title VII’s retaliation provision would provide a remedy. 562 U.S. at 173-74.
The Court held that a reasonable employee might be dissuaded from filing a charge of discrimination or engaging in other protected activity if she knew her fiancé would be fired in retaliation for her doing so. Id. at 174. Although the Court noted that firing a close family member as an act of retaliation is proscribed by Title VII and taking a less serious adverse action against an acquaintance likely would not, it declined to further define which relationships and actions would merit protection under Title VII. Id. at 175. Employment relationships, personal relationships, and the severity of various acts of retaliation are fact-dependent, the Court explained, so associational retaliation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Id. (citing Burlington, 548 U.S., at 69).
An employee need not have associated with someone who actually engaged in protected activity while also an employee to have a valid claim for associational discrimination. Perez, 399 F. Supp. 3d at 319. For example, in Perez v. Lloyd Industries, Inc., the court held that an employer engaged in associational discrimination where the plaintiff employees associated with an ex-employee who engaged in protected activity after the end of his employment. Id. Because the employer wrongly believed that the former employee engaged in protected activity while he was still employed, the plaintiffs stated a claim for associational discrimination. Id. at 319-20. Therefore, a plaintiff may have a claim for associational discrimination where her employer discriminated against her because of her connection with someone the employer believes engaged in protected activity while still an employee – regardless of whether the employer’s suspicion is mistaken.
Whistleblower Retaliation Lawyers
If you have suffered retaliation for whistleblowing, call our experienced whistleblower lawyers today at 202-262-8959. Whistleblower retaliation can take many forms and can exact both a financial and emotional toll on the whistleblower. Federal and state whistleblower retaliation laws provide a wide range of remedies, including lost wages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.